I am glad to see the vigour of Deputy Corry, one of the survivors of the battles of last week, one of the battered veterans of the Legion of the Rearguard who won such a great victory for the Chief. They nearly lost with Arkle—they did the next to impossible.
Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that it deliberately abolishes the fundamental rights of trade unions and trade unionists and that the proposals contained in the Bill will create an atmosphere which will hinder the amicable settlement of trade disputes."—(Deputy Corish.)
When this interlude is over, I would like the Deputy to come to the motion before the House.
I do not intend to be diversional in this matter at all, but in the course of the discussion yesterday the Taoiseach produced what was undoubtedly a diversionary gimmick in his announcement of the intended appointment of a Minister for Labour, the setting up of a new portfolio. This is not new at all. It has been tried before. Those of us who were knocking around at the time know that there was a Minister for Labour in the First Dáil Cabinet, the late Countess Markievicz, and she was followed by another outstanding citizen whom we lost recently, the late Mr. Joe McGrath. I do not know who the Taoiseach has in mind sufficiently big to fill the shoes of these two illustrious people.
We all know that since last week the claims of various people are being discussed and bandied about. People are saying: "I got more votes than you", and so on. What meaning has this proposal for the community and for the workers of this country? I think it has none. It is just the creation of another job for someone and my opinion in that regard is reinforced when I look at the record of such persons as are now in the Cabinet who have been charged with responsibilities approximating to those of a Minister for Labour heretofore. There is not the understanding, the sympathy or the capacity in the ranks of the present Cabinet to deal with the problems which affect labour. If the Taoiseach promoted some of the present Parliamentary Secretaries, they might do a better job.
The present Minister for Transport and Power has made a complete and utter hash of labour relations. He forced me to say this last evening when he insisted that I make personal references, something that I would never wish to do with regard to him or any other Member of this House. The Minister on every occasion after dinner, after banquet, on every postprandial occasion, on every occasion on which he got an opportunity to make a speech, has said something which has set the workers' teeth on edge. He has talked continuously, about the obligations and duties of workers, about the need for greater production, which is translated in his mind as the need for more work, longer hours and less wages. This is the definition of greater productivity the Minister has succeeded in creating.
Greater production means more wages. I have made that clear.
The Minister never made it clear. That is one of the great disabilities and faults of this Government, that they have never been able, because of their incapacity to do so, to establish satisfactory relations with the workers. Perhaps they have succeeded in doing so with one or two out of many trade union officials, but not with the bulk of trade union officials who have a very difficult and onerous job in maintaining the balance between the workers and the employers.
Everybody who has any experience as a trade union official knows well what I am talking about. The discharging of the obligations of a trade union official is a most difficult task. A man who has the responsibility of the general secretaryship of a large trade union or of a fractious trade union, consisting of people of a particular character, has a far more difficult job than any Minister of Government. The Minister walks into an office and he has an army of civil servants who lay documents before him and all he has to say is "yes" or "no." A trade union official has to deal with the demands of his members; he often has to face them when they are in a difficult mood and try to persuade them to do something which they do not wish to do. He very often has to take up a difficult position opposed to that of his members.
No Minister of State has to deal with that sort of thing. If things are difficult in a cumann, he can send a backbencher to smooth things over. I have seen that gallant gentleman, Deputy Carty, discharge this duty most honourably and with great effect after the damage done in the Roscommon by-election by the then Minister for Agriculture. None but the brave would have dared to step into the village where Mick Carty went.
Was he fully armed?
Can we get back from Roscommon?
As I was saying, the official communique issued last week in the journal of the legion of the Rearguard referred to the tremendous battle against desperate odds that you had to hold the day. Now it appears that the Legion of the Rearguard has abandoned the whole idea, in so far as labour relations are concerned, of conference, conciliation and consent, to which they gave some lip service over a time, and have now come back to the policy of the knout and the prison cell if you do not do what you are told.
Those who may be bathing in the transient popularity which the Government and Government supporters consider may flow from their action during these days and these hours should remember that nothing fades like the public memory, and that the evil that men do lives after them. In the days which lie ahead, this ESB dispute will be forgotten. It is already in process of being ironed out. It will not be forgotten that the Fianna Fáil Party and the supporters of the Fianna Fáil Government in the Dáil, who were elected by cajoling and misleading voters in working class areas into voting for them, had a very definite and positive hand and a vote in putting on the Statute Book for the first time in the history of the State a piece of legislation which says to workers: "You must work; you must not picket; if you do not do what we tell you, we will put you in such a position that you will find yourselves in Mountjoy." That is what it amounts to.
That is not true. You must not stop the supply of electricity to the community. That is what we are legislating for.
Solely that.
But you can be put to gaol as a result of this Bill.
There is no mention of gaol.
I know but, if you do not pay the fine, what happens?
What had to be decided is the prior right of the community to electricity.
(Interruptions.)
There are no better men than the men who are concerned in this dispute. They are every bit as good as any men who ever lived in this country. There are no better men now than then or there were no better men then than now. They are all Irish-men. Deputy Corry need not be claiming greater glory for himself or creating a halo for himself. Gaol is part of the ordinary risk of any politician. It has been up to now and, it would appear, will be in future for workers pursuing their ordinary day's work. It is extended now into that sphere. At the same time, I do not want to say anything in derogation of Deputy Corry's great services. I only wish that some of the younger members had the same experiences as he had. It might do them a lot of good.
This proposal to set up a Ministry of Labour is just another of the Taoiseach's gimmicks to try to distract attention from what, in fact, he is doing and what he is doing here is a very fundamental and damaging thing, and he is being helped to do it, I am sorry to say, by the main Opposition Party. However, it may be the marriage which all the country is seeking, the marriage of the two Parties of the Right and, indeed, when that day comes, it will make for greater progress. This is not just my view. This is a view shared by realists in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael —both sides. When, eventually, the time comes they will see no further point in keeping up the old Civil War row because the people will not believe it any longer and, as a matter of self-protection, they will come together and, in ever-diminishing numbers, will occupy one side of the House and, eventually, nature will assert itself and the workers will come into their own. That may not be tomorrow but it will come if we have patience. History is with us.
I do not think there is any validity in this proposal of the Taoiseach to set up a Ministry of Labour. It is not going to help. As I see the activities of some members of the Cabinet, I can conceive it as being utterly damaging. Imagine a Ministry of Labour in the hands of some of the members of the "Mayo Clinic". What will the country be at all? Considering what they did to the old gentleman in the Park, what would they do if they were in charge of such a post?
The fitters who have been much maligned in all this business are, in the main, married men with families. There were suggestions about responsibility. The Minister for Industry and Commerce used the word "responsibility" at least a dozen times in this House. It is the practice of persons who have no other argument to talk about responsibility and irresponsibility. How does one define these terms?
The Deputy is the great definer of all things.
I do not seek to define anything. I am merely trying to grapple with a very difficult situation. To take up such positions is disastrous. That is what the Minister is doing. He is working himself into a situation. He is in a fixed position. He is going to hammer the workers into submission and has not left himself any room, apparently, for withdrawal from that position.
This legislation will not come into effect unless the electricity supply is stopped, unless the whole community is threatened with a stoppage of electricity supply. That is when this legislation will come into effect.
At present, there is no question of electricity supply being stopped.
At present there is no question of using this legislation. It will be used only in the event of electricity supply being stopped or in imminent danger of being stopped.
Are there any pickets on now?
No, and there is no legislation in force.
Are you going to withdraw the legislation?
There is a serious question arising out of two sudden stoppages and we are asking the Dáil to give us power to deal with another one if it comes up but the power will not be used unless the community is threatened by a stoppage.
That does not in any way excuse your unforgivable intrusion on and invasion of the rights of the individual.
The whole community has a prior right over any one section.
The Minister and those associated with him have developed, or are trying to develop, a climate of opinion seeking to make criminals out of decent men.
I have stated that if this can be achieved by negotiation with the men, we will prefer it.
You are exaggerating.
No, we are not.
At present there are negotiations in progress and you are putting a Bill through the House and, for the first time in the history of the State, as far as I know, there will be on the Statute Book a Bill which will take from the workers a right they now have and compel them to work.
A Bill which will allow the Government to make an order to maintain supplies of electricity.
Let us stick to the facts. The Minister can make all the points he wants later on. The Government are bringing in this legislation at a moment when there is actually an atmosphere of conciliation. The ESB are meeting with the unions under the aegis of the Labour Court and it is at that moment that the Government, with all their sense of responsibility, bring in this piece of provocative legislation, legislation calculated to incite the minds of the most placid men who believe in trade unionism, calculated to secure in them, if they are men at all, the reaction: "What the hell are they doing to us? Is this the end of it all after half a century of struggle to achieve our rights, the rights which enable us to picket peacefully? They are going to take all that from us now by this legislation." The Government do this at a moment of approaching peace. If ever there was irresponsibility, this is it.
If the supply of electricity is maintained, this legislation will not be used.
That is not the point. The Minister is leapfrogging. No Government have the right to invade the liberty of the individual unless there is a very serious situation.
And that is the only situation in which we will use this legislation.
The power will be there on the Statute Book and it should not be on the Statute Book.
We should not have the power at all.
In my opinion, the Minister is doing something which is contrary to the Constitution.
That is not for the Deputy to say to me.
That is my opinion. I am no lawyer. I did not write the Constitution. But it can be argued certainly that this Bill is ultra vires the Constitution because it abrogates certain existing rights of citizens.
As I said, this will be remembered. It will be remembered when electricity is running freely and when thoughts of disruption are far from the minds of the people. This Act will be remembered then. It will be remembered against those who supported it.
There has been talk in the newspapers about the earnings of these fitters. The actual position should, I think, be put on record so that the mass of false propaganda which has been disseminated may be given the lie and the facts may be known at least to those who take the trouble to read the Dáil Debates. The pay of a fitter employed by the ESB for the first two years is £13 10s. 1d. From that is deducted superannuation at the rate of 10d. in the £.
But nobody will listen to that.
After five years an ordinary fitter may have a maximum of £15. A fitter is a man who serves his time; he gives just as much of his time to learning his trade as a doctor does—seven years. It may be reduced now to five years, but it was seven years. This man fulfils a most important function. That is admitted. He is a key man in this industry. Just two and a half years ago, the fitters decided that they wanted an improvement in their wages and on 29th December, 1964, they served a claim upon the ESB. This claim was acknowledged on 1st January by the ESB with "an expression of surprise that the unions should claim grade status for its members who are mechanical fitters employed by the Board".
This, of course, brings the whole question of an incomes policy, to which I referred last night, into focus. This Government have pretended an interest in the formulation and operation of an incomes policy. Surely such a policy calls for an analysis of payments made against returns given, of payments made for the various skills provided and the returns given for those payments. This business of an incomes policy was side-stepped by the Government and by every group in this House except the Labour Party. The report of the NIEC was formally adopted by this House, accepted by the Government, recommended and so on. If I do not make a mistake, it was even included in some way in that romantic novel, The Second Programme for Economic Expansion. The acceptance of the NIEC report is quite meaningless because obviously the Government have no intention of ever operating an incomes policy, although that policy is an absolute must if we are to make economic progress and achieve the greater production we need, and which we will have to achieve if we are to try at any time in the future to trade in Europe on a common basis with other countries. An incomes policy is a prerequisite of such a situation. But the Government are stepping away from it.
To come back to the ESB, here is a State body expressing surprise that a union representing highly skilled craftsmen should seek grade status for its members, the mechanical fitters. The accent so far as remuneration is concerned should be upon the payment of men who have skills of this kind and there should be greater provision made in managerial budgets of all kinds, public and private, for the proper payment of men so important as these, especially in the light of their having spent long periods of their lives learning a difficult trade and who continue learning that trade all through their lives.
The reason a mechanical fitter is paid more after five years service than he is after one year is that it has been established and accepted by every reasonable person that a craftsman with five years' experience is much better at his job and knows considerably more about it than he did when he came in originally. The payment of extra money at the end of five years by the ESB to the mechanical fitter is payment for additional skill and additional knowledge. It is not a service payment at all.
To resume the brief history of what occurred between the unions and the ESB, on 23rd February, 1965, a conference was held between the unions and the ESB and the fitters' case was presented. The Board promised to give consideration to the claim. On 20th April, 1965, almost six months after the original submission by the union, the claim was rejected by the Board. The ESB Tribunal heard the claim on 26th July, three months after its rejection by the Board, and on 29th July the Tribunal's decision was released in two words: "Claim rejected". Now, under the terms of the Electricity Supply (Superannuation) Act, 1942, under which the ESB manual workers tribunal was set up, workers have up to now been entitled to strike one month after a decision, provided they are dissatisfied with that decision. This is the existing law. This is the provision which will be wiped out by this coercive legislation. This right to strike, which is in the Act of 1942, will be taken from the workers concerned.
Despite the fact that the workers have the right, under the law, to strike, on 26th July, 1965, they decided to explore the possibility of further negotiations. They met the Board on 18th November, 1965; it is now 11 months since they made their first claim. These are the impetuous, irresponsible, hasty fitters. At the conclusion of that meeting, the union representatives felt there was some hope that the ESB would meet the claim in a reasonable way. The personnel officer said he would immediately go into the matter with his Board and give the union a quick reply. No communication was ever received by the unions, after that, from the personnel officer. No communication was received from this highly efficient Board whose praises have been sung in this House. I am tempted to go into the history of some of those gentlemen but I shall not: I shall leave it for the nonce.
On 4th February, 1966, the unions notified the Board of a ban on overtime from 11th February. Of course, under the law at the moment, the worker has the right to refuse to work overtime. When will you take that away? No doubt you have that in mind?
All we are interfering with is the right over life and death and right to put workers out of work —and I will say that a million times, if the Labour Party make me say it.
The Minister must have had a machine pumping that into his ears all the night. It is the only thing the Minister can say. He is afraid to depart for a moment from the set speech.
The Deputy is attempting a most dangerous thing.
What? Free speech?
No. It is what the Deputy is attempting. This is an inflammatory interpretation.
I am reading out the facts. The Minister will not accuse me of being inflammatory. I am accusing the Minister and the Government of provoking a situation whereby they can bring in more repressive anti-trade union laws on a wider scale. The Minister will not say in this House, and nobody will say, that I am trying to inflame the situation.
I will certainly say it.
I would expect anything of you.
I suggest that Deputy Dunne be allowed to make his speech without interruption. If there is anything Deputies wish to contradict, they can do so afterwards by way of a speech.
The Deputy asked a question and I answered it.
I wish the Minister would ignore these questions.
If it were not for the rules of order, I assure you I would welcome these interruptions so that we would get the air cleared and bring the matter into proper focus and get the real words of these gentlemen opposite, not the parrot-cry, the anti-trade union mind which is there.
Talk sense, if you can talk anything, or sit down.
If it hurts and if the cap fits, then it had better be worn.
Deputies should come to the Bill.
I have been trying to do that but my patience has been tried. I was saying that on 4th February, 1966, the union notified the Board of a ban on overtime. I asked the Minister about this and he did not answer it at all: he answered it with the parrot-cry about the other thing.
Out of respect for the Chair, I am not answering that.
Anything you may say will be taken down, I assure you. The unions advised the Board that there would be a ban on overtime from 11th February, pending a ballot vote for strike action by the fitters concerned. The reaction to this decision by the union was a letter from the Board stating that the union's representations were under consideration: this is some months after their discussion with the personnel officer of the Board. By this time, of course, as was to be expected, the patience of the fitters was wearing a bit thin. Is it to be wondered that, after going on two years of negotiations—two years of negotiations—fellows would begin to get a bit restive? The union members decided they would still continue with their ban on overtime.
The union met the Board on 14th February and the ESB proposal was that the hourly rate of fitters should be converted into a weekly wage as they considered that this should cover the question of status. This proposal was rejected by the members. The union served strike notice on the Board to expire on 29th April and agreed not to place pickets for a further seven days, in the final hope that a reasonable attitude would be adopted by the Board to the men's claim and as an indication of the men's sense of responsibility to their colleagues and to the country. Now, what is to be said to that? What is to be said is that the people who should be in the public pillory now are the members of the Board of the ESB and the Minister for Transport and Power, particularly the Minister for Transport and Power, who is present in the House at the moment. The people who are on the Board are no more than his political creatures, most of them. Although he has washed his hands here of responsibility, like Pontius Pilate, many and many and many is the time——
That statement has been corrected before. Those words should not be used in reference to any Member of this House. I must ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.
I do. I was not aware that it was outside the rules of order. It seems to me to be very light compared with some of the things I have heard in this House during my time here.
The Deputy must be the last of the innocents.
Reference to that historical figure has not been allowed in this House.
I regard an insult to me by Deputy Dunne as a great compliment.
The Minister's feelings do not come into this matter. It is the feelings of the people of the country that count.
The Minister has no feelings.
Deputy Dunne should stop flattering the Minister for Transport and Power.
I do not regard it as flattery when you speak in that way.
I do not propose to make any reference to historical figures. They become sad when you think of them. The people who have evaded all responsibility as far as this national crisis is concerned are the Minister for Transport and Power, in the first instance, the Government and the people who populate the boardroom of the ESB. This is no more than an indication of the whole morass into which the Government collectively and the members of the Government Party have let this country drift as far as industrial relations are concerned. Not alone have you this problem in the ESB, this utter disregard by the management for what are the reasonable demands of the fitters pursued in a reasonable way over 2½ years of negotiation——
Will the Deputy please use the third person?
I am sorry if I have permitted my feelings to allow me stray from the proper usage of the terms of the House. The Government have permitted the country to drift into a condition of despondency, a general belief that we are going to be far worse before we get better. One of the people who can verify this is Deputy Fitzpatrick of Dublin whose admirable address to the worthy organisation to which he is chairman impressed me, as it must impress the Taoiseach and the members of the Government. He is a responsible Deputy who indicated quite clearly his utter dissatisfaction with the progress of economic events in this country and, by inference, laid the responsibility where it properly belongs—at the door of the Government he supports. The fact that he supports the Government is not surprising. It is a typical Fianna Fáil phenomenon. Consistency, they call it. We will have more of Deputy Fitzpatrick's admirable address later when we come to discuss the censure motion.
The whole structure of industrial relations today is distressing and depressing. This is the 14th week of the strike in the paper mills which is causing untold hardship to a large number of families in my constituency. From what I am told, this matter could be settled, if the Government chose to settle it, by bringing the facts of life to the notice of one individual who is imposing hardship on hundreds of workers in the paper mills. Here we are talking about bringing in a law to put under restraint 100 fitters, while on the other hand we allow one employer to go his merry way and cause hardship to hundreds of workers and their families. The effects of the paper mills strike are yet to be seen. They may be extraordinarily damaging to our economy. There is not much doing in the building trade and I understand the position may become worse. There is a danger of complete collapse for want of money. That is why the Government are happy there is a bank strike because nobody can get money from the banks but the Government. There are no paper bags for cement and this will affect the cement industry. Nobody knows how many other industries will be affected. What is the Minister for Industry and Commerce doing about it?
Would you get people to accept my decision on it?
I think you might try.
It is not what you think.
What I am thinking a lot of people are thinking. A lot of people showed that last week. Do not make the mistake of thinking what I am sure my colleagues on the left-hand side think, that it was a vote for Fine Gael. A lot of people voted because they wanted the Government to understand they were fed up and dissatisfied with what they were doing.
In a straight vote, the combined forces were beaten by 10,000 votes.
(Interruptions.)
The Presidential election does not arise relevantly on this Bill. A rehash of what happened last week is totally irrelevant.
(Cavan): It showed the Government are not in a position to lead any longer.
Our vote was higher than in the general election.
What Dublin does today, Ireland does tomorrow.
Why are you celebrating a defeat?
Deputy Dunne on the Bill, and on the Bill only.
In the matter of order, I would suggest that Deputy Corry might not be allowed to use language which is the prerogative of the BBC.
He is usually incomprehensible to me.
Deputy MacEntee last night, in the course of an impassioned interjection, made a statement which was not factually correct. I am sure he was under the impression it was, but it was not. He said the ESB Tribunal had made an award to these workers. That, I understand, is not so.
Deputy MacEntee has the proud memory of being one of the founder members of the Irish Socialist Party— perhaps one of the Dublin Communists to whom Deputy Corry was referring.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputy Coughlan please cease interrupting?
Deputy Dunne on the Bill. No?
The Deputy should leave his trowel outside.
I do not want to limit the Deputy, but it would be an idea if he talked about the Bill.
The day is gone when the Deputy or his class could limit anything in this country.
Deputy Dunne will please come to the Bill or else resume his seat. If he cannot continue on the Bill, there is only one remedy.
Deputy Booth is trying to usurp your authority. I have given in brief some of the thoughts which occurred to me in my consideration of this Bill and I propose on Committee Stage to enlarge on them when I have had more time to digest fully what the implications are. I do want to take this opportunity of saying that each and every one of the Government Party, in spite of their transient happiness and popularity now, will live to rue the day they promoted this measure and passed it through the House.
I personally regret that this Bill is necessary. The whole of my Party regret that this Bill is necessary, but, in our opinion, it is necessary. We must see that the economy can go on. We must see that hundreds of thousands of men are not thrown out of work and that, as has been said before, people in hospitals in iron lungs, in all the various stages of illness where they may need warmth, can avail themselves of electricity. That is the reason we have supported this Bill. There is no other reason and we cannot emphasise that too much. With that reason is allied the fact that this Parliament which is the supreme body in the country, the only legislative body in our land, must in this instance show that it is leading the people and protecting them from a very grave and terrible situation.
I do not think some of the rural Deputies realise the terror which struck Dublin a few weeks ago when we were on the verge of the complete closure of the ESB. Shops were in darkness and people were sent home. Shopgirls were sent home because nowadays the use of electricity is widespread, and where before there was natural lighting in many of the shops, there is now artificial lighting, and without that the premises would be in complete darkness and would operate to the danger of the public and indeed of the workers themselves. These girls were let go that Monday morning. Many of them went home to houses where in this city, as in other cities in Ireland, the only means of cooking and of heating in houses and flats is electricity. The use of electricity in Dublin is widespread and becoming increasingly so. I myself saw men in factories, and some of the men went home immediately; others were kept on that Monday morning cleaning the factory floor and polishing the machines, doing maintenance work, because there was no electricity to run the machines.
I mention that because that is one of the fundamental reasons that Fine Gael are supporting this Bill. Rural Deputies will readily understand that the deprivation of electricity from the farms would place farmers in a very serious position. They can also appreciate the effect on food not only in homes but in big storage warehouses where it is kept in deep freeze, and in shops, in quite small grocers' shops. I know a case of a small grocer who stood to lose several hundred pounds worth in a matter of hours because the deep freeze had ceased to work. Fortunately on that occasion the stoppage was not as prolonged as it was at first feared and by Monday afternoon the danger was averted.
On that point, it was owing to the intervention of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that that terrible crisis was averted, and all praise to them for the action which they took. It was no thanks to the intervention of any Minister on the opposite side of the House. It was the labour people who did it, and I am very happy as an Irishman that that important body showed how much it was interested in maintaining the livelihood and the health of the citizens of Ireland. I shall revert to what I have said, that it was no thanks to the Government. There are many aspects of that I could mention. We have the unenviable reputation over the past 12 months of having the highest strike rate in Western Europe. It is not possible to go into the reasons for that this morning, nor is it advisable because nobody properly understands this wave of industrial unrest which has swept over a great deal of Europe but which seems to have hit us with a severity which I can only compare with the terrible Spanish flu which hit Western Europe after the first World War.
Inflation is the cause of it.
As Deputy Dillon says, inflation is the cause of it. That situation has been growing for years and what have the Government done about it? Precisely nothing. They put their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and left the facts to sort themselves out.
We have a series of strikes at present involving some people who consider they have the whitest collars in the country and our economy is slowly grinding to a halt as a result of these strikes. I charge the Government with gross incompetence and ineptitude in connection with that situation. The Government should have probed the situation and taken steps to bring about a climate favourable to the settlement of these strikes but they have not done so. They have not acted as counsellors or guides; they have chosen the short term political attitude which at the time they were warned would lead to very great unrest and ultimately very great hardship for our people.
I do not want to hark back to the past but certain things must be recalled so that we may understand the present. The past always impinges on the present and the future. It can be wise in certain circumstances to look ahead but if we do not look at the past, we cannot learn the lessons it can teach us. The Government blithely put on the purchase tax——
The TOT—hear, hear.
——and called it a turnover tax because a purchase tax would have appeared as if it were something the community would have to pay.
I do not see how a discussion on the turnover tax would be relevant.
It is the cause of this Bill.
I do not wish unduly to labour these matters but we have before us a Bill which is unique in the history of this Parliament.
Hear, hear.
I regard it as perhaps the most important Bill which has ever come before the Dáil because we are taking a step into the future which many of us are taking with trepidation but taking because we know that the first function of the Government is to govern. When they have the livelihood, the health and wellbeing of the people in their hands, they must take that step which is apparent in this Bill. We, as the chief Opposition, would fail in our duty if we did not endeavour to explain to the country why we are supporting the Government in this and at the same time point out why this situation has arisen.
Hear, hear.
For political purposes, the Government interfered with the normal economic flow or inter-change of prices and wages. That was done for two by-elections and in order to cover up the political losses which had resulted from the turnover tax, or purchase tax as I prefer to call it. The natural flow of our economy was upset as a result. The delicate balance between prices and wages was disturbed and from that flowed the situation in which we now find ourselves. But we in Fine Gael must stand over the Government's action in protecting the livelihood, the health and the employment of the people. Electricity in Ireland, where we have no significant coal supplies—certainly not enough—has become essential. We depend on it for our motive power. We have developed it very well and in a short space of time it has become as necessary to our economy as water.
It is a terrible thing for people in houses and flats in the cities to be without any heat whatever except perhaps some camp fire equipment which is usually somewhat dangerous as it is easy to knock over and set on fire. A mother with children is in a terrible situation trying to heat food for them and get water for washing which is absolutely necessary in the case of small children whose health would otherwise be affected and the health of the whole family. From the commercial point of view, in big stores when lifts cannot operate, people cannot get upstairs and heavy goods cannot be taken up. The community is dependent on electricity.
This Bill has come so suddenly that the philosophic concept behind it has shocked many people, the idea of restraining workers seeking increases which, in their opinion, may be highly justified. That is something which is very new to us and none of us likes it. We prefer the old and tried methods of conciliation and arbitration. Those methods unfortunately have broken down and their failure could tear the economy to pieces in a very short time. So we will support the Government on this. We do not like doing so because we feel they should have handled the situation better, and God knows they had ample time to realise that these forces were gathering. All these strikes showed the way in which the minds of the workers were turning and management and workers have been grappling desperately with this situation which has very nearly gone beyond the capability of the various interests to settle between themselves. They have not had the lead from the Government which they had a right to expect.
I accept what the Taoiseach said about a Ministry of Labour, but it all depends on the way in which that Minister will work, on the way in which he will tackle the problem. He will have some of the worst problems which ever confronted this Government and the country on his plate the moment he is appointed. I do not envy him his job. He will want to be a clever, tactful and skilful man. Much will depend on the degree of sincerity which he will bring to his work. We on this side of the House hope the proposal will be a success. It is a desperately serious matter for the country that it should be a success.
Things have been allowed to drift. Why is it that it is only now this Ministry is being created? Is it a kind of sop? I hope it is not. I hope it is something which will help labour and management to get together and settle their differences. We had thought that perhaps the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Industry and Commerce would settle labour relations adequately. In point of fact, they did not. Why is it that this aspect of Government action has been so conspicuous by its absence? The country is entitled to hear the answer to that question from the Government as an earnest of their intention to make the new Ministry a viable proposition, of benefit to the community at large.
It is the community at large in which my Party and I are interested. I heard one Deputy refer to the Taoiseach as a political animal and he was not saying it in any manner against the Taoiseach. I regret that personally I am not a political animal; I am a commercial animal. My life has been spent more in commerce and in trade than in politics and I am not interested in making political capital in this manner. I have watched with horror the growing unrest in this country of ours, this country in which both employers and labour leaders have done so much to bring about a peaceful settlement of their disputes. Somehow or other the solution always seems to elude the best minds on both sides.
I do not think this is a matter of blaming anybody. It is a matter of obtaining better understanding. I hope this new Ministry will provide data, will build up a fund of knowledge which can be generally called upon and which can be of great help to the industrial leaders on both sides who are endeavouring to settle or avert disputes. We want as much information of that type as we can have. I believe that Irish people with their intensely speculative minds are well fitted for that type of research. I believe we could not only do ourselves a lot of good but could also make a contribution to the outside world as we have in other matters of the mind, in the orderly settlement of industrial disputes. We must turn over a new leaf in this respect if we want to have a proper standard of living for our work people and for all classes of the community.
In conclusion, I would say again that the Minister for Transport and Power, who has come in for a lot of criticism in this matter, asked us to accept the Bill in the spirit in which it was introduced. Certainly, we will accept the Bill in the spirit in which it is introduced. We certainly will have something to say on the Committee Stage of the Bill. We will not and do not stand over any interference with the right of the individual to withdraw his labour. That is a fundamental right of the individual. But we recognise that it is necessary in this case. In this particular key industry, it is necessary that, for the sake of the community at large, it should not be permitted, but, equally, we will do everything a responsible Opposition can do to see that justice and, perhaps, more than justice—generosity—is done to people who find themselves coming under the prohibition of this Bill. We believe, tragically, that this Bill is necessary and that is why we are going to support it.
It is inevitable that the rights of Deputies and the rights of trade unions would be brought into this debate. The rights of the trade unionist to withdraw his labour or to picket, naturally, would come under discussion and the rights of Deputies to discuss at whatever length they like any measure that comes before this House. I think it is now acknowledged that there are certain peculiar circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill which determine whether this Bill should be debated at such length as to make it ineffectual or its coming into operation so untimely as to be ineffectual.
No right or privilege is absolute, not even the right to life itself and the greater the right proportionately greater is the responsibility that goes with that right. There is no questioning here, and never will be, of the right of a man to withdraw his labour in normal circumstances but his subsequent actions must be tempered in relation to the damage that they might do to the community as a whole or to the hardships these actions might cause.
As I said, the right to withdraw labour must be accepted within limits but it is usually followed in every country by picketing. Picketing is designed to bring to the notice of the public generally that a dispute exists between the worker and his employer. Unfortunately, it also operates to ensure that other persons who have no dispute even with the same employer will be denied their own right to work.
(Cavan): Surely section 5 restricts the right to strike? Section 5 of this Bill makes it illegal.
If the Deputy would allow me to develop my argument without interrupting after the first two or three sentences, I just want to make this Bill relevant to the conditions in which we live and particularly the circumstances with which we are now faced or likely to be faced.
(Cavan): I am sorry; I thought the Minister made an absolute statement.
No, sir. I am making an argument and trying as well as I can to develop what leads up to this situation. In doing that, I should like to remind the House that picketing is not a natural or inalienable right. Picketing is a creature of statute. To beset a person's house or business premises for any purpose was up to 1906 an actionable wrong but the 1906 Trade Disputes Act brought picketing in pursuance of a genuine trade dispute outside the scope of an actionable wrong and made it legal to the extent that a person whose house or premises were beset was not entitled to sue the picketers for damage. Therefore, being a creature of statute, it is a proper subject for Parliament to discuss, to determine the limits to which picketing may be applied.
Therefore, the right to picketing being limited for the purposes only of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, Parliament must at all times be free to deal with that right and Parliament must as a consequence ensure that if the right to picket which it gives to some citizens threatens the nation itself, the economic survival of the nation itself or even worse, then it is the duty of Parliament as effectively as it can to ensure that the rights of the people generally, their right to work and their right to life itself must be safeguarded.
I think this is what is involved in the cutting off of the electricity supply in this country particularly, and, indeed, in many other countries because, not only is the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people threatened by the cutting off of electricity but the very lives of people are threatened.
I am not going to dwell on the hardships that have been created and the greater hardships that could still be created by the lack of electricity supply. We know them only too well. Fortunately, the last stoppage did not go so far as to take life, even if it endangered life, but everybody knows the dire consequences the failure of electricity supply can bring on the people.
Therefore, the Government and the Dáil, Parliament generally, would be totally lacking in meeting their responsibilities if they did not take action to remedy the situation that has arisen or is likely to arise or any situation that could arise in the future. The merits of this strike are not in issue but the rights of the people are, the rights of the people to continue in their employment, not only the rights of employers or Members of the Oireachtas, but the rights of all the people.
The complexities of industrial relations in democracies generally are not very easy of solution and I share the conviction expressed by the Leader of the Labour Party that industrial relations cannot be governed and determined only by legislation. Here, I should like to take issue with Deputy Dockrell who naïvely said that this Government had done nothing about the solution of the industrial relations problems that have arisen over the past few years. I should like to remind him that all the legislation dealing with industrial relations that was introduced so far was introduced by the Taoiseach as Minister for Industry and Commerce or by myself, and that industrial relations are not governed only by industrial relations legislation but by trade union legislation as well.
Everybody realises that trade union legislation is the legislation that gives to trade unions the means whereby they can organise and, to whatever extent they can, control their members. We know only too well that it is defective in many respects. So do the members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Earlier on, when certain defects did appear, attempts were made by the Fianna Fáil Government of the day to remedy those defects. There were consultations between the two Congresses and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce to discover in what way trade union law could be strengthened in order to ensure the better organisation and the better functioning of trade unionism generally.
The Taoiseach, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, went so far as to suggest to both Congresses at that time, and subsequently to the single Congress, that they should write their own trade union law and he, having examined it to ensure that it did not conflict with the rights of people generally, would guarantee its passage in the form of legislation. That, of course, was never done. I, in turn, followed that line up with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions when I became Minister for Industry and Commerce. I had a series of consultations with them. They pointed out to me, and rightly, that trade union law is not something one can sit down and write very easily. It is a product of evolution to a considerable extent. It is a product of negotiation within the trade unions and of bringing forward agreed recommendations which they feel they can carry across to their own members. They told me at that time that they were engaged in that very process. Unfortunately, it has taken a long time because from delegate conference to delegate conference, only a limited number of problems can be dealt with. However, it is a process that will have to be continued. It is something to which Deputy Dockrell and his colleagues know there is no ready solution.
With regard to industrial legislation, there have been a series of consultations and discussions not only between myself and Congress and the FUE but also between my successor and those bodies. As a result of my experience in the Department of Industry and Commerce in a series of industrial disputes, I recognised the need for changing our industrial relations legislation. Early on I drafted the broad outlines of a Bill to effect these changes. I communicated with Congress and the FUE asking for their comments. Unfortunately these comments were very slow in coming, but they had to be consulted and we had to receive their agreement or disagreement as the case might be. One cannot legislate in these matters against the wishes of the vast majority. Legislation of itself will not solve our industrial relations problems in the long run. There will have to be agreement. I brought these negotiations to a fairly advanced stage, notwithstanding the understandable slowness in the comments and recommendations from Congress and the FUE. I brought them to the point which has resulted in there now being legislation, within a year of Cabinet changes, ready to be brought forward by my successor.
This legislation will affect the functioning of the Labour Court. That is really the kernel of our industrial relations problems as far as the solution of disputes is concerned. The Congress and the FUE are familiar with the details of the Bill and the Bill is on the point of being introduced. It is wrong, therefore, for Deputy Dockrell to suggest, obviously for Party political purposes, in the hope that people may believe what he says, that this Government have done nothing about this great and increasing problem of industrial relations.
So far as the previous strike in the ESB which threatened the supply of electricity is concerned, it is no harm to recall the facts for the benefit of the House in order to indicate the kind of difficulty involved in these matters. The House will remember that in 1961 we had an electricians' strike. There were two main unions involved—the Electrical Trade Union and the Irish Industrial Engineering and Electrical Trade Union, the former being the bigger union. I had long and arduous meetings with the executives of these two unions, jointly and separately, and ultimately produced a solution that was acceptable to the executives of these two unions. I was able to convince the employers' side they also ought to accept. In the early afternoon, before I saw a prospect of a solution emerging, I asked the executives of the two trade unions concerned if I put up a proposition to them, which I thought would be acceptable, and if I could convince the employers it was a fair settlement, would they ensure they could get their members to accept? They said some of their executive members were not present and I adjourned the meeting for a couple of hours to enable all the executives of both unions to be present.
I then put forward the proposition. It was agreed. I went back to the employers and, after some time, they accepted. I got a very short agreement signed, to be supplemented on the following day, and I left the conference hall about 12.30 in the morning. At 3 o'clock I was summoned from my bed by the leaders of one of the unions. They told me their strike committee had thrown them out. Unfortunately that happens in many trade disputes. The responsible executives, having negotiated a dispute and agreed on what appear to them to be acceptable terms, are repudiated by their strike committee. That sad situation can arise.
Many disputes take place and I can, I think, in this regard find support for that statement in the statement of the President of the ITGWU yesterday when he said that some trade unionists generate disputes for their own narrow purposes, disputes that many of their constituent members have no sympathy with. Unfortunately that happens. I was going to make that statement today and I am glad to find myself supported in my contention by no less a person than the President of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. Unless and until we can imbue leaders of organisations with the kind of responsibility I think they would like to have and with the authority which, in many cases, they do not have, we shall have great difficulty in producing fair settlements of many of the disputes that arise.
Having said that, and having indicated that I share the views of Deputy Corish that legislation alone cannot solve trade disputes or cannot be the answer to the problem of our industrial relations, it is obvious now that legislation is necessary in a limited sphere. I believe the great majority of trade unionists acknowledge this. I believe the great majority welcome this and welcome, in particular, the provisions of this Bill, not perhaps in detail but certainly in outline. I want to assure them that this Bill in its present form is not a threat to trade unionists, to the trade unions, or to any legitimate action they might wish to take now or in the future in pursuit of their aims and objects.
As I said, when the very livelihood of the country is threatened by a dispute of this nature, then it is obvious that we have to do something effective about it. To what extent legislation of this nature can be effective is questionable as well. However, unless Parliament and the Government can establish their authority in order to safeguard the public, then anarchy and chaos will inevitably arise.
This is a withdrawal and it must be acknowledged to be a withdrawal of certain trade union rights but in a limited sphere which I think the people generally consider is necessary. Trade unionists in other activities will continue, and will always continue, to have the rights to withdraw labour and to picket the premises from which the labour has been withdrawn. In so far as there is a diminution of these rights —and for good reason—then there ought to be some other means whereby men employed in such an essential service as this can have some corresponding rights. As the Taoiseach said yesterday, it would be better if these corresponding rights could be established by agreement and I hope that will be possible. To the extent that there is a limitation of these statutory rights—they are not natural or inalienable rights—there ought to be other means by which these men can pursue grievances of any kind to their solutions. I hope this will be possible.
I do not propose to delay the House. There have been certain almost inflammatory speeches by some members of the House. In circumstances such as now prevail, it is easy to make statements that will incite people if not to action, then into a thinking which is fundamentally wrong. What is fundamentally right is to ensure that the livelihood of thousands of trade unionists themselves, the life of many weaker sections of our community and the maintenance of the health of many of our people should not be threatened but should be established and maintained by us as a Parliament and by those of us who are in Government.
We in the Labour Party must congratulate ourselves on the action we took yesterday on the introduction of this act of tyranny by the Government to coerce men to do something they conscientiously thought they were entitled not to do. We have have always opposed tyranny while Fianna Fáil have always advocated tyranny, coercion and internment. I can see and we in the Labour Party can see the reopening of the internment camps because of the section which imposes heavy and severe fines on the people who will stand conscientiously for what they believe. We have opposed the measure on those lines. We have exposed to the people this filibustering by Fianna Fáil and their attempt to rush through legislation and create a scare which did not exist. We were expected to play a blind man's buff game with a very serious and difficult situation. We refused to do that and we still refuse to do it until such time as these matters are discussed in this House and until such time as we have an opportunity of airing our views and consulting with our constituents on their reactions to these coercive approaches. We abhor the actions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Transport and Power in this whole matter. They stand indicted before the people of Ireland for their dilly-dallying approach and for shirking the responsibility which is theirs.
Negotiations have been going on in this matter for over two years. When, in 1961, coercive legislation was introduced in similar circumstances, a commission was set up at that time to inquire into the supply of current and power from the ESB. The recommendation then made was that there should be only one tribunal for manual and other workers. That recommendation was never implemented. Whether or not it was discussed by the Minister for Transport and Power or by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and their Departments is something we shall never know.
The Deputy should know that it was pursued with the tribunal.
If the Minister will just be patient, I shall prove to him in a moment——
It was a recommendation or order.
Mr. O'Leary
No action was taken.
No action was taken with regard to the commission you set up. If you set up a commission, you must accept their recommendation. That, you did not do.
It was not a unilateral function.
Why did you not do it? Why did the Government not do it?
Deputy Coughlan should use the third person.
In a matter such as this, it tries the patience of any human being where coercive legislation is being introduced and is being clouded and woolled over. It is our duty on these benches to shear that wool aside and to lay naked and bare the situation as it is presented and will be carried out by the Fianna Fáil Government. We take our stand in this issue because we believe that coercion will solve nothing. Nobody should know that better than those in the Fianna Fáil benches who hanged them and left them to die on hunger strike and interned them and still they got beaten and it proved nothing. I cannot understand the thinking of the people who sit over there and come along and reintroduce similar measures now. That is the situation as we see it and want to project to the Irish people on this issue.
Negotiations have been going on for over two years and nothing has been done. At the same time, men in other grades of the ESB had their claims satisfied. Let us not misunderstand the situation here. We are not opposing increases but we are opposing injustice. We want fair play all round. That has not been given in this case. It is not so long since the following increases were given to the clerical grades: Grade 1, from £3,136 to £3,350; Grade 2 from £2,732 to £2,930; Grade 3 from £2,386 to £2,570; Grade 4 from £2,151 to £2,330; Grade 5 from £1,975 to £2,150; Grade 6 from £1,739 to £1,900 and Grade 7 from £1,619 to £1,755. The clerical staff in the seven grades received increases of between £200 and £300 a year. Then we had the Minister for Industry and Commerce making the following statement in the Evening Herald:
Dr. Hillery, Minister for Industry and Commerce stressed the importance of early discussions with the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards. This could save a firm a lot of unnecessary worry and expense. The build-up of skilled men, he said, for which the association might be thanked, was of the greatest importance to our economy just now. A skilled craftsman was an asset to his firm and the nation.
Now we find the same Minister telling us—and it was repeated yesterday by the Taoiseach—that there should be similar wages and salaries in all semi-State bodies. These fitters are skilled men who have served an apprenticeship of seven years and who have secured their Intermediate and Group Certificates. We find they are being underpaid in comparison with other semi-State bodies. Men in a similar position in Telefís Éireann are getting about £22 8. 0. per week and those in Dunlops in Cork are getting £21 12. 0. a week. These men, who are looking for justice and fair play, are being misrepresented and described as irresponsible, while in actual fact they hold a Gibraltarous position in this country, despite what my Paisley friend here might say about it.
We in the Labour Party regard the matter very seriously. Both the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Transport and Power stand indicted and guilty. We say they were inefficient in the control of their respective Departments. No other country in the world would allow a situation which threatened two and a half years ago to drift the way it did, while these imbecilic Ministers sat down and saw this thing on the horizon facing the nation. They then tell us people will die in iron lungs and on operating tables. If they do, the guilt lies over there and nowhere else. Let nobody be deluded on that issue.
We were wondering why this action was taken at this stage. It is easy to see. Many things were before the people for consideration last week. In my own constituency during the whole campaign, the Minister for Health made an appeal for Labour Party support. He hoped they would all pledge their support to the "Long Fellow" going forward. We heard what the Minister would do for the nurses, the workers and all the other promises. I am sorry I was not here for his sudden outburst last night—his reaction to the delusion and disappointment now on top of him. He will have to face hard and bitter facts when he returns home. He will be told of the coercion and the threat to reopen the Curragh internment camp. None of these people who will be fined will pay his fine. Let the Government understand that.
I detected a terrible weakness in all the Taoiseach's references yesterday. First he said that public opinion had to be satisfied. He said the facts of the situation were not known. We all know that, because he made sure, and the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Industry and Commerce made sure, the facts would not be known. Do not start telling me again about the ESB and the 200,000 workers. Nobody believes that, including yourself, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Transport and Power.
The Deputy might use the third person and not address Ministers across the floor.
There is great friendship and familiarity between us.
I do not care what friendship is between you. The rules of the House must be observed.
Far be it from me to break the rules.
I am only suggesting the Deputy will observe the rules.
It is not deliberate.
It may not be.
The Taoiseach then made a statement that when he was forming these semi-State bodies, he insisted there should be equality of pay between those in semi-State bodies and private concerns. That has not been the position. I do not know where he got the information he gave about this whole issue in the speech he made yesterday because we had to correct him at least three times and tell him he was off beam. However, the gem of the speech was his announcement that he was now considering the creation of a new Ministry, a Ministry of Labour. In that statement he admits the failure of the Department of Industry and Commerce and of the Department of Transport and Power to do their job. He is now going to go through the ranks to find somebody who knows something about labour relations. I do not know where he is going to find him. He will want a very fine comb indeed. We were led to understand we had one already in the Parliamentary Secretary, who was to deal with redundancy and do the devil and all. He has done nothing so far except make afternoon speeches at some pitch and toss school, at some dinner or wedding. They make all their speeches there, each and every one of them, ably led by the Minister for Health. He is out there in front like Arkle all the time on this issue. However, this is a four-and-a-half mile chase where many fences have to be jumped. The front runners are non-stayers, and that applies to the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil.
Fianna Fáil have deluded the people. The industrial trouble—and I want to stress the word "trouble"— which prevails today is due solely and entirely to the introduction of the turnover tax. One would not need to be a Cassandra to prophesy what is going to happen. The Minister for Finance told us at that time that prices would not rise because of the competition that would prevail.
I do not see what that has to do with the Bill before us.
The turnover tax is the cause of that Bill.
It is what is in the Bill that is under discussion.
And that brought the Bill to Dáil Éireann.
Clearly not.
Clearly, yes.
£13 million out of a national income of £1,000 million.
He is pontificating again.
There were parades and protests in the city of Dublin, outside this gate, and people said what the turnover tax was going to lead to, and here it is. There is no use doing the ostrich in this matter.
Hear, hear.
The facts were plain at that time. One did not need long distance glasses to see what was coming. The situation now is that we are leading ourselves into a police state, and if the internment camps have to open again, I suppose some of us will find ourselves there. That will not worry us. We have the situation in relation to the ESB today. It may be petrol drivers tomorrow, and somebody else the day after, all off to the Curragh for internment. It is back to the police state we had before under Fianna Fáil. Things come very easily when the habit is created. That habit has been created and lives with Fianna Fáil in those benches, and I suppose it will die with them. The quicker they go the better so that there will be room for somebody else to do something worth while.
No pulling the wool over people's eyes will blind us to the naked fact that the introduction of this tyrannical piece of legislation is due to the 2½ per cent turnover tax. We challenge denial of the statement that the present situation and this legislation now being introduced was forecast from these benches when the turnover tax was introduced. Let me follow up that forecast and go on record as saying that we are now on the road to the internment camp in the Curragh.
(Cavan): The introduction of this Bill is, in my opinion, the greatest indictment of the Government that could be framed. It is an admission by the Government that their financial, industrial and economic policies have failed, and failed completely. This Bill, we are told, is introduced to deal with a special group of workers, the ESB workers. That may be so. The fact is that this country is, and has been for some time past, in industrial chaos. From listening to Ministers, one would think that there was one strike and one strike only in operation or threatened. Everybody knows that strikes are the order of the day and that the country's industry is in absolute chaos. This Bill is an indictment of the Government, a plea of guilty, an admission of failure on their part. Since 1906 the Trade Disputes Act conferred the right to strike on workers here and, I think, in Great Britain. It was never found necessary here or in Britain to take that right away from the workers and it still has not been found necessary in Britain or Northern Ireland to interfere with the rights conferred on workers by the Trade Disputes Act. Only in our country, where one would think our background, moral upbringing and general philosophy would make industrial chaos less likely, is it necessary for the first time to introduce a measure such as this.
The present Government have been in office since 1957 without a break and this is the direct result of their financial and economic policies. It is extraordinary that this measure should be rushed upon us and that the House should have been asked yesterday to deal with all stages of the Bill between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. That was a panic measure on the part of the Government. But I wonder have the Government panicked? Why did they not in the past eight or nine years make some effort to deal with industrial relations? Why did they not in the past four or five months, when it became apparent that things had got out of control through their own fault, introduce a measure of some sort or take some steps to protect the lives and property and employment of the people?
I suggest that on this occasion as on every other occasion the Government were prompted by, and acted on, political rather than national considerations. They could have introduced this Bill a fortnight or a month ago and given the House adequate opportunity to discuss it. It could have been introduced and given a Second Reading on one day and the Committee Stage could have been taken a week or a fortnight later in the usual way. That would have been good parliamentary and constitutional procedure. It would have given every Deputy, whether Fianna Fáil, Labour, Fine Gael or Independent, an opportunity of studying the Bill and consulting his constituents about it. It would have given the Parties an opportunity to study the Bill and come to a conclusion about it before giving their considered views to the House and the country and voting on it. But that would have been bad politics on the part of the Government and would have been making them more unpopular so near to the Presidential election in which they were fighting for their existence and the existence of the founder of their Party.
That is typical, as I hope to prove in the few remarks I have to make, of Fianna Fáil tactics since 1957. It is considerations of that sort that have brought about the present situation and made this Bill necessary. The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Government had no solution to the problem of industrial relations. If so, he is not fit to lead an Irish Government. If he creates a state of affairs where repressive legislation of this kind is necessary here when it is not necessary in industrial England or in any other part of these islands, he is not fit to lead an Irish Government. I go further and say that not alone have the present Government no solution to the problem of industrial relations but by their policy and recklessness they have brought about the problem of industrial relations which we are facing here today.
We are supporting this Bill because we consider it necessary at the moment as a last resort and I think I am entitled to say briefly why the Bill is necessary. I do not propose to go into any of the arguments I shall make in detail. The Bill is necessary because of Government action and policy over the past seven years. It is necessary because the Government decided to do anything which was popular at the time in order to stay in power. I notice an absence from the House of the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Health who were a few years ago, and I suppose still are, the bright young things of the Government Party, the men with ideas to keep the Government Party in power.
I remember when I first came into the Oireachtas in 1962, those men were preaching that the country was enjoying unheard of prosperity, that the national economy was buoyant and that the national cake had grown to enormous proportions. In my opinion, those three encouraged the Taoiseach to initiate the status increases and encouraged him to give substantial increases in salary to professional men and members of the Civil Service who were already enjoying very substantial salaries. They argued that the national economy was so buoyant that it would be unfair not to distribute the national cake fairly and squarely from top to bottom. They introduced the status increases. Then, in order to find money to keep up with this reckless spending, they had to introduce the turnover tax. I do not intend to deal at any length with that tax beyond saying that it started to increase the cost of living by taxing the necessaries of life, bread, butter, sugar and tea, despite the fact that the then Minister for Finance stated that it would not increase the cost of living. It started a whirlwind of wages trying to keep up with prices, of increasing prices in an effort to recoup manufacturers for the increase in the cost of production and so on. The turnover tax was the cause of all that.
Following on that, we had a typical example of the recklessness of the Government, of the mentality of a Government prepared to do anything to remain in office, to win elections and to retain popularity. Shortly after the turnover tax was introduced, we had two very important by-elections. At the same time negotiations were proceeding between labour and management for the ninth round wage increase. Those negotiations were proceeding in a reasonable way as far as anybody could see.
I do not think that any strikes were threatened at the time but there were protracted negotiations at the end of 1963 and the beginning of 1964. It was likely that they would continue into the early spring of 1964 when the by-elections were due in Cork and Kildare. The Taoiseach, in order to avoid a situation in which he would have to fight two by-elections at the same time as these negotiations were going on, decided to plunge into the arena and give the green light for a 12 per cent increase in wages, when he knew and appreciated that the economy of this country could only afford an increase of seven per cent.
These are not my words. They are the words and admissions of the Taoiseach who said at that time that the country could only afford a seven per cent increase, but that he would advise the employers to concede a 12 per cent increase so that he could win the by-elections in Cork and Kildare and so remain in office.
They were the dearest by-elections that were ever bought in this country.
(Cavan): The greatest difficulty and handicap this country is labouring under today is not so much the industrial chaos and unrest but what brought it about, that is, lack of leadership. We have no leadership within the Government and we have no leadership at the top of the Government. The Government have lost the capacity to lead and, as from the first of this month, they have lost their right to lead, because they have lost the confidence of the people. They have lost the confidence of the residents of Greater Dublin and of the people of Cork. It is no wonder that the Government and their Leader have lost the confidence of the people.
At the last general election this Party advocated an incomes policy, a policy under which there would be a fair distribution of the wealth of the country and of the national income. That policy was sneered at and ridiculed by the Taoiseach. Speaking in Mullingar he attacked the incomes policy, not as a man who did not know anything about it or who had not given it consideration, but as a man who had made a full study of it. He said that an incomes policy only worked in Communist countries and that he would not embark upon such a policy or have anything to do with it. Surely those are the words of a man who had given that policy serious consideration?
Yet when speaking on the Report of the NIEC which advocated an incomes policy, the same Taoiseach who had dismissed that policy came into this House and endorsed the Report which had advocated it. Again, he came into this House yesterday and said that he disliked mentioning the words "incomes policy" because nobody knew what they meant. I ask the House and the country how could anyone have confidence in the Leader of a Government who speaks and acts in such a manner. A general election was held on 7th April, 1965. This is June, 1966. In March, 1965 the Taoiseach said in Mullingar when ridiculing an incomes policy: "I know all about it but I would not touch it with a barge pole". A few months later he was in favour of it and now he says again that he will not have it.
The Taoiseach is a gambler who has ceased to know the difference between a horse and a greyhound.
(Cavan): When the appointment of a Minister for Labour and a Minister for Economic Planning was advocated by this Party, the Taoiseach ridiculed both suggestions. He would not have them. Yesterday he came into this House and in justification of the state of affairs which makes this Bill necessary, said he is going to set up a Ministry of Labour. I wonder would I be far from the truth if I ventured to suggest that the Presidential election might have had something to do with the setting up of this further Ministry? Fianna Fáil lost the last general election in Mayo. They reacted by appointing a Parliamentary Secretary, in addition to a Minister in that constituency. In the same constituency, they lost the Presidential election and it appears that the Parliamentary Secretary is to be promoted to the status of a Minister in order to try to retrieve the position there. They did the same thing in Dublin North-East. When they lost a seat at the last election, they appointed another Minister and put him in that constituency in order to try to reclaim lost ground but that did not work because they were given a tremendous blow in the Presidential election there.
The Government have lost the capacity to lead and the right to lead because they have done nothing about price control. The same Taoiseach has spoken in different languages about price control. He stated within the lifetime of most people in this Dáil, within the past few years, that an attempt to control prices only increased prices. He is on record as having said that. Yet he did make some sort of an effort within recent months to introduce price control.
The same Government have done nothing whatever about the cost of living. The cost of living has gone higher and higher. They told us that the Budget which they introduced this year did not increase the cost of living. They told us that there was nothing in the Budget which would seriously affect the cost of living. Yet, before the debate on the Budget had concluded, they were forced to admit that the Budget had increased the cost of living because they had second thinking on their three per cent increase in wages and salaries.
This Party, with regret, support this Bill, support it because the lives, the employment, the general comfort and the very existence of the people of this country are in danger if it does not go through. I want to say that we support the Bill as an effort to avoid the catastrophies which might ensure from a general ESB strike but I wonder is the solution to the problem in this Bill. I doubt it very much.
Why support it?
(Cavan): I doubt if this Bill will do what the Minister hopes it will do. I doubt very much if coercion of the type which is in this Bill will effect its purpose. I think that the only solution for the state into which this country has been brought by the Government's policy over the past seven years is for the Government to resign, hold a general election and let the people decide. The people have had an opportunity in a very general way recently of giving their opinion on the Government and their policy. The result has been that in vast areas of the country where at the last general election the Government held considerable majorities, they would be now completely annihilated in a general election. Therefore, I say that the Government in their present position in the Dáil and in the country are weaker than they ever were before, that they are not in a position to continue to lead and should resign.
I should just like to deal with Deputy Fitzpatrick's last remark. I want to illustrate that Mr. de Valera was elected by a majority of over 10,000 votes in a straight fight as between all Parties concerned and in my constituency in Cork we turned a minority of 1,400 into a majority of over 1,000.
Now, Sir, I should like, before Deputy Fitzpatrick runs away, to give Deputy Fitzpatrick's solution for strikes. The Deputy's solution for strikes is to close down the industry: if you close down the industry, you will have no strikes because there will be no one working. In proof of that, I produce a document here which Deputy Fitzpatrick challenged me to produce a few weeks ago. This is Deputy Fitzpatrick's election address to the electorate of Cavan, with a lovely picture of the Deputy when he was a member of the League of Youth.
(Cavan): I hope the Deputy will read it all.
In this, he states that the Fine Gael financial policy is based on the elimination of extravagance and waste such as Verolme Dockyard. Verolme Dockyard, a couple of weeks ago, had to put off 1,000 men. Although Deputy Fitzpatrick would have got rid of them in April, 1965, they are still working there, thank God. Those 1,000 men had to walk out the gates, not because they were on strike but because they could not work. There was the same condition of affairs in Irish Steel where 600 men had to be thrown out of employment because of this position in regard to the electricity supply. These men are my constituents, my workers, my voters. I am not concerned with any little alliance that was made here in the Pale between the Freemason element and the Communist element which brought about the last election.
Freemasons and Communists—glory be to God!
I say here, with no bones about it——
If we had Michael Moran and Deputy Corry——
Would the Deputy shut up and perhaps somebody could be heard?
Order, please.
I frankly admit that the Taoiseach is responsible for the present position. Had he not set to work when he came into Government first to build up industry here in order to provide employment for our young men and women, there would be no disputes today because there would be no trade unions and none of these little lads would be sitting here barking at the Taoiseach. If he had not established industries here, Deputy Fitzpatrick and the people over there could not have been busy trying to pull them down every chance they got.
Nonsense.
This is a different Bill from the one I thought we would be dealing with here today. There is a responsibility on the Government in a situation in which there is danger of thousands being thrown out of employment to take steps to prevent that situation arising, a situation created by the irresponsible action of certain individuals. The Government were bound morally to bring in legislation to deal with such a situation arising in essential industries, be it electricity supply, transport, or anything else. What is required is a court with power, a court before which workers can bring their grievances and have them solved, and the decision of which should be final and binding. Consider the situation facing the farmers when the supply of power was cut off. They had no electricity to milk their cows.
And that is a great mystery.
If a farmer did not milk until after eight o'clock in the morning, he had no electricity. These are the things I want remedied. I want the position with regard to transport remedied, too. Only two years ago the farmers had to go down to the railway station and load their beet themselves because of a transport strike. At least 25 per cent of that beet crop was lost because there was no haulage. And the Gardaí were waiting at the gate to take the names and addresses of the drivers of those lorries in order to prosecute them because they did not hold the special licence required for haulage.
These are the situations that must be dealt with. There is only one way of dealing with them. In this House we can elect a Ceann Comhairle and a Leas-Cheann Comhairle without any difficulty. It should be possible for trade unions and employers to agree on a neutral arbitrator whose decisions would be final in the same way as the rulings of the Ceann Comhairle are final here. If you do not obey, then you will be put out of the House, and there is no more about it. It is the very same thing.
There have been complaints here from one quarter about the turnover tax and from another about the ninth round. There are sections—Deputy Dockrell and the other few professional gentlemen here belong to them—who think that the profits from increased prosperity must be divided amongst themselves, and amongst no one else.
Deputy Booth.
I have a completely different concept. I have it because of the men who went out and succeeded in getting freedom for us; they were the ordinary workers and the farmers' sons. We did not have any of these classy boys on that job. That is one thing I can never forget. If increased prosperity allowed Seán Lemass to announce a ninth round wage increase, and if he erred a little in being too generous to the workers, more power to him.
But did he?
I have great faith in the prosperity of this country. Twelve months ago I had a strike in the farmers' organisation I represent. We had to fight it out because of the reluctance of the Government to put a penny a pound on sugar. Last November I was faced with the same position when the General Manager of the Sugar Company told me there was no money for anyone.
Are we not all threatened with gaol?
I had to do one of two things—either have another strike or accept the statement made by the General Manager. I told the General Manager I would take this price— I had faith in the continued prosperity of the country—on condition that he signed an agreement that any increase given to the workers over the next 12 months would likewise be given to the farmers who were growing beet. I am proud to say that yesterday the General Manager of the Sugar Company told me there would be an increase of 8/9 a ton in the price of beet. That was the result of that little agreement. There was no strike. I learned lately that the propensity is to let the other fellow fight for you.
We are now faced with a situation in which we will either have to let all industry close down or take steps to deal with the situation in order to keep industry going. In such circumstances, I cannot see the Government doing anything other than what they are doing. We do not need a Minister for Labour. We need someone agreed on, as the Ceann Comhairle is agreed on here, or someone appointed in the same way as a judge. Appoint someone in charge of an arbitration court whose verdict will be final in these matters so that there will not be any room for the type of position that obtains at present in the Labour Court where you go in, argue your case and, if you do not get the decision you want, you say: "I do not agree with the decision." Let us, in God's name, have an end to that.
If we are to advance in this country, if we are to continue to find employment for our young boys and our young girls, we cannot afford strikes. At the present day, we cannot afford any disruption of industry and in God's name let us work on the basis that we cannot afford it. Surely it should not be beyond the intelligence and the give-and-take of our trade unions and our employers to find not alone one man but a team of men who would act as arbitrators in labour disputes and whose decision would be final and not a mockery of a court, as the present Labour Court is, and nothing else. Any court that cannot give a decision, and enforce it, should not be there.
Mr. O'Leary
It is not from a narrow point of view that we have raised our objections to this Bill. Various speakers this morning have taken their stand on the interests of the entire community. We have seen in the recent past how the strike weapon has been resorted to by different elements in our community which previously one would not have expected to see use the strike weapon. We also object to the Bill on the ground that it is a dangerous precedent which introduces a judicial concept into a voluntary situation and therefore creates a dangerous precedent for other industrial elements in our system. Furthermore, there is the point that what has been applied in the case of one essential service can also be applied in other essential services. Who is to say, in any withdrawal of labour affecting an important service, whether that is not also an essential service? There is a superficial idea that bringing this legal interpretation into the field of industrial relations will free us from the spectre of strikes, that, in some way, strikes will be warded off if we bring in a strong enough legal formula.
We are dealing with a Government whose Minister for Transport and Power only last night was seemingly ignorant of the number of generating stations in the country and who did not know what picketing was going on at the time. However, I am sure that some member of the Government will be aware of what an authority on industrial relations, Professor Wedderburn, has to say in this context about countries such as the United States and Australia. The incidence of strikes in this country is extremely high. We do not see any hope of a lessening of strikes in this country by introducing more penal law into this particular area.
This Government refused to ratify the two ILO Conventions (1) Freedom of Association and (2) Collective Bargaining. The reason they gave for their refusal is that our system is a voluntary system between trade unions and employers. This Bill repeats the Combination Act of 1800 which was repealed in 1825 and which forbade strikes in certain industries. If there was an anxiety about electricity, I should have thought that the Protection and Conspiracy against Property Act introduced in 1875 which applied to gas and water workers, and which was later extended to electricity workers, making it a criminal offence to strike in breach of contract in these industries, surely gave sufficient protection for this type of industry. It gave penalties for people who, in breach of contract, went on strike in these industries.
We feel extremely uneasy about different sections in this Bill. We shall be going into them in greater detail on Committee Stage. Yesterday, the Minister for Transport and Power threw a gibe across the floor of this House about what the socialist Government had done in Sweden. Socialist Governments in Sweden and elsewhere operate an entirely different system of industrial relations. We cannot change from one system to another at the drop of a hat. Our system is voluntary. It has been built up over a period of more than 150 years. We do not think it proper that it should be changed overnight in this fashion.
In so-called socialist Sweden, there is a wage-related pension for all power workers and there is an increase coming every six months, related to the cost of living. Surely the Minister for Transport and Power is not comparing this ramshackle system with that which operates in Sweden and other continental countries? Surely a Government who are beginning to sabotage their own industrial relations would not claim in advance what socialist Sweden has done, when we see what they have done for power workers under a different system?
Section 9 of the Bill actually claims negligence as a criminal offence. I always understood that criminal offence was based on intention or reasonable foresight. It is also dangerous that the Government themselves can claim that a crisis affects the electricity industry. There is no differential as to which worker it will apply to for that particular industry. The background against which the Government have introduced this Bill is the feeling that this is an essential service. It could lead to another preamble for yet another essential service.
This morning, the Minister for Finance took a very false stand when he spoke about trade union legislation and the inner workings of unions. He actually claimed this to be part of the general system of industrial relations here. He said that what has been granted in the 1906 Trade Disputes Act can be taken away by law and that our system is the creature of statute. Our system has painfully been built up over a number of years. It is not perfect but it has worked in the past. This leap in the dark may well land us in greater trouble than we are in at the moment. Two years ago, the Taoiseach officially buried the class war. It may be back with greater vengeance by far with the introduction of Bills such as this which include a penalty in connection with industrial relations.
Section 8 abolishes the relevant section of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. That Act did not confer immense privileges on the trade union movement but it granted them a certain immunity in law. Many speakers here referred to the inner meaning of democracy. The whole purpose of democracy in a modern economy is for the State to maintain a balance between the overall wealth of the owners of capital and the weaker sections who have nothing to sell but their labour. It cannot claim to be democratic when this balance is tilted one way or the other. This Bill tilts the balance definitely towards the employer.
The Bill brings us a step nearer to the totalitarian concept of the State. I do not say that for dramatic impact but as a statement of fact. We have had many people on the Fianna Fáil Benches over the years who for Party reasons — some, perhaps, have been sincere—have been soothsayers marking the sinister advance of Communism in this country. They now see their Party bringing in a Bill which can only be said to be a weakening of the trade union movement and the voluntary principle of trade union relations. It is claimed in the Western democracies that the difference between our countries and the Communist countries is that the trade unions here have a free choice. This morning the Government took a step towards the totalitarian concept where the State no longer stands neutral in the struggle between employer and employee but definitely comes down heavily for the employer.
We have said that the greatest contribution the State can make to our industrial relations is the promotion of industrial growth. We have said that intervention by law where the State gives moral assent to legal injunctions against trade unions is a vital step in the direction of overbalancing the relationship between employers and trade unions. If the Taoiseach claims we were using a legalism in our objection yesterday, we must plead that the importance of this issue transcends any legislation coming before the present Dáil. The tragedy of the situation is that the Government bring in this Bill with strong newspaper propaganda on the necessity for its introduction. I fear the people are going to approve of this Bill without knowing the implications involved. The Government cannot be freed of the responsibility for creating this kind of condition.
The implications of precedent in this Bill are extraordinary. It attempts in a little over two days of this House's time to interfere with the system built up, as I said, painfully over years of endeavour. It is not a perfect system but we have the guarantee in this imperfect world that it has worked in the past. It is only over the past year it has shown evidence of strain, and the blame for that can be put on other parts of our economy and has nothing to do with the actual system of industrial relations operating.
In this situation the Government have produced a Minister for Labour. He certainly is not getting a very happy send-off in his job with this kind of legislation to announce his coming. This Government have not made his passage through the trade union movement any easier by arming him with this extraordinary Bill at the beginning of his reign. As we see it, the measures contemplated here will have the effect of bringing penal sanctions against trade unions in the pursuit of their trade unions objectives and will make his office practically synonymous with that of the Minister for Justice. This is an unhappy state of affairs.
Section 9 means that the executives, the general secretary and other officials of a trade union can, in fact, be convicted of an offence. It removes the protection of the Trade Disputes Act. This means that a trade union in tort cannot have this immunity in civil law. It means that a grave inroad has been made on the right of trade unions, given not by a socialist Government, because could anybody call the British Government in 1906 a socialist Government? Yet this so-called modern Government of Fianna Fáil operating in the Twenty-six Counties takes away rights confirmed by a British Government, which certainly did not claim any modern socialist feeling, and they do so on the basis that this is an essential service and that there are issues here which are larger than any one section of the community.
I must call on the Minister to conclude.
There are just a few points raised by Deputy O'Leary I would like to answer. One is the question why had we not ratified the Conventions he mentioned. They have been ratified. There may be some confusion in his mind with another Convention we have not yet ratified. Those he mentioned have been ratified by this country.
Mr. O'Leary
Has it not been pleaded in the case of these Conventions that our system was a voluntary system?
That was in relation to the equal pay Convention.
Mr. O'Leary
When did we ratify the freedom of association conventions?
Soon after they were adopted. We were criticised for legislating without consultation. During the debate I heard equal criticism—and I heard quite a lot of it before the debate—of delay and not bringing in prompt legislation. The hold-up in that case was due to consultation. The House cannot have it both ways. We are criticised for consulting and criticised for not consulting.
At the very beginning, I should like to assure Deputy O'Leary that I do not regard this as a precedent in any way. I reassert my belief, as I have expressed it time and time again, that we would hope as a Government to get free negotiation operating. Certainly I think a measure of goodwill is necessary to make any legislation work. I am certain legislation will not work by itself. I have said that often enough.
Some Labour Deputies asked why we did not carry out the amalgamation of the ESB Tribunals as recommended by the 1961 Commission. In that case we did consult with the union. That is what is wanted. The Staff Association and the ITGWU were strongly opposed to the idea of a single tribunal for clerical and manual workers. We received no observations from Congress but they had two members on the Commission. The ETU considered that the recommendations in the Report could not be accepted by their union as their union was not a party to the ESB group of unions. No reply was received from the ESB group of unions. In the latter part of 1964, the Department concerned, the Department of Transport and Power, decided that further action should not be taken, pending consideration of the general question of industrial relations. Most Labour Deputies asked us why we had not done this. This is the answer. It is consultation again.
When I say I do not regard this as a precedent, I would like to point out that I was purposely short when introducing this Second Stage. I said that this was a most unusual circumstance. I said the Government did not at any time expect to be put in the position of producing this type of legislation. To be clear I feel one has to be brief, and it is essential that we be clear in this situation, which I consider a most serious one. First and foremost was the question at issue: the essential nature of electricity. If electricity is so essential to all our lives, is it essential enough to the common good that some rights of individuals and certain sections should be curtailed to preserve the prior right of the community? I do not think anybody in this House will question that the community as a whole has a prior right over any one of its sections.
I doubt if anybody debating here will question that electricity is the lifeline of the country. In industry, in hospitals, and on the farm, in every aspect of the nation's life, it is essential. We simply cannot put up with a prolonged interruption in the supply of electricity, nor can we even contemplate an imminent interruption of supply. We must all be aware now, after two stoppages within two weeks, of the insecurity into which everybody in this country goes from day to day: surgeons waiting to operate wondering whether the machinery will function; workers going to their work wondering whether they will be able to get the machines going; children in incubators; perishable goods. That is the kind of insecurity with which we live when power can be shut off and shut off suddenly by a group of people. If the critical situation appears to have receded, this insecurity remains and must remain. There is no need for me to dramatise the situation. It has been done over and over. What we are asking in this legislation is that the Government be given power to deal with, first, the insecurity and, secondly, the crisis, if it should return suddenly.
To meet this situation, as I said when introducing the Second Stage, we could proceed in either of two ways. We could secure electricity supplies against interruption by reason of a dispute by a voluntary arrangement negotiated between employees of the ESB and the Board, but we have not got this voluntary arrangement and we are forced to the alternative, and to us and to everybody else, obviously, the less attractive alternative, of seeking power from the Oireachtas to make it possible for us to deal in some way with the interruption of electrical power if this should occur.
I do not know if it is necessary for me to follow the arguments of people who say: "We must not do it because there is no crisis now." When is there a crisis? We are in this insecure position: there are five pickets on Monday, six on Tuesday, three on Wednesday, none on Thursday, seven on Friday. Was there no crisis on Thursday? The community just cannot live in this insecurity. We are not looking for legislation to deal with something that is there. We are looking for power to meet a situation if it does arise. I do not think anybody will claim that the community has not got this right.
I was accused this morning of having a microphone under my pillow when I kept repeating that what this legislation seeks to do is to prevent the interruption of electrical supply by reason of a strike, and it is only in circumstances in which power is interrupted or in imminent danger of being interrupted that the Government may make an order bringing the proposals of this legislation into effect. This Order would have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Provision is made for the recall of the Oireachtas if it is in recess, and either House may annul such an Order.
Negotiations are in progress today. I have no news for the House on them up to now. I have not dealt with the merits of the claim or the merits of any other claim. I hope the process of negotiation will find solutions in justice. However, the House must be aware that the function of the Government is to set up the machinery by which people can negotiate agreements. We have tribunals like the Labour Court. Negotiations have been used in this trying situation. What we are seeking to achieve—and I must repeat it—is the protection of the community, the protection of the community not against workers but against the disastrous effects of a dispute between workers and employers.
This legislation is not legislation against 100 fitters, nor is it legislation against the fundamental right to withdraw labour. This legislation is to deal only with a situation where the supply of electricity is interrupted by dispute and if, in such circumstances, the rights of some people are curtailed, it is only because of the prior right of the majority, of all the community.
Democracy is not for all, so?
Democracy would be a mockery if you could not protect the community against the disastrous effects of a dispute between employers and employees.
It is being made a mockery by this Government.
I have sympathy for Labour Deputies. I know what this means for them. This legislation was not entered into in a sudden fit of pique or temper. This was very well considered. As I said, if we could find an alternative way, by negotiation, of making arrangements——
We know it was not done in haste. The stage was well set.
The Minister has only four minutes.
The Chairman of the ESB is a great stage manager, not to mention the Minister for Transport and Power.
My purpose in anything I have said, including the interventions I made when Deputy Dunne was speaking, is to establish that this is not a precedent, that this is not a means of curtailing rights, that this legislation is to ensure the supply of electricity.
Mr. O'Leary
Which means curtailments of rights
If the strike weapon so endangers the life of the community as to curtail the rights of the community, then the rights of the sector must take second place to the rights of the whole.
Mr. O'Leary
Every strike that ever was curtailed some rights.
Is it a good thing to have the right to put 200,000 people out of work?
The right of a good wage would be cheaper.
As I said, I am not raising the question of the claim. Negotiations are going on.
They have been going on since 1964. I do not see the Minister coming up with any solution, any more than his colleague beside him, the Minister for Transport and Power.
Deputy Cluskey should not interrupt the Minister.
There are two sides.
Mr. O'Leary
The Minister can say that again.
This is the result of incompetence.
I am prepared at any time—and I think the people dealing with these problems know I am available at any time—to enter into any discussions which would be helpful.
Mr. O'Leary
Why would he not sack a few people on the Board?
Deputy O'Leary spoke of the weaker section, the worker and the union. One of the big problems is the shift of power to the workers, to the trade unions. The cold hard fact of industrial life is that there has been a shift of power, and it is now with the unions and the workers.
Mr. O'Leary
What is the Minister doing?
I do not want to get away from the purpose of this Bill, but the fundamental question now should be: how is this power to be used? It is not for me to lecture——
Indeed, it is.
Mr. O'Leary
The Bill has done it for him.
The legitimate function of a trade union is to ensure the welfare of its members.
What is the primary function of the Minister?
The unions themselves must now look at their primary objective in the light of the accretion of power to the unions.
A very good act in the circumstances, this sort of thing.
Anything in the nature of unco-ordinated use of this power among 120 odd unions in this country at the very least would cause the unions to find themselves faced with the question of whether, in fact, they are ensuring the welfare of their members. It is no secret that there is rivalry between trade unions——
Mr. O'Leary
And no secret that there is rivalry between Ministers.
——and it has developed into serious rivalry in the use of their power. Trade unionism could find itself in a very difficult situation.
Employers were never in a difficult situation. They had only to say no.
It is now 2 o'clock.
There are very serious considerations and the difficulties remain to be solved by the community. Again, I can assure the unions that if there is any help I can give, I am available at any time to try to find a solution to these problems. I know how complex they are.
Mr. O'Leary
This is almost like a funeral service.
If we can find a national solution to the problems facing the trade unions, I shall be very happy to do so. Again, I assure the House that if we can secure the continuity of electricity supplies and protect them against interruptions, as a result of disputes, through a negotiated voluntary arrangement, the Government will be very happy. Time and again I have said that we believe that harmonious relations in industry are only possible with a large element of goodwill on both sides.
Hear, hear. That is the best thing the Minister has said.
I wish to make an explanation. During the discussion here last night the Minister for Health completely lost his head and according to today's papers——
The Deputy may not make a speech at this stage.
I want to explain my position.
Very well.
The Minister for Health shouted a remark about the Labour Party in the Presidential election and said: "You are only a collection of cowards. You don't speak for trade unions in this country." There follows:
Mr. Spring: Whom do you speak for?
Mr. O'Malley: More trade unionists voted for me than for any member over there. The more you do for people over there the less thanks you get for it from Deputy Spring.
I want to make my position clear. At no time did I approach the Minister for Health on my own behalf. I may have approached him to do something for people I represent but I want the Minister for Health to come in at Question Time and tell this House if on any occasion I approached him during his term as Minister for Health to do anything for myself. During my whole life I never asked the Minister for Health to do anything for me.
The Deputy has been permitted to make his explanation.
Question put: " That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 103; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- Esmonde Sir Anthony C.
- Fahey, John
- Fanning, John.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Faulkner Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Fitzpatrick Thomas J.
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Patrick
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sheridan, Joseph.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Casey, Seán.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Everett James.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies James Tully and Treacy.
Question declared carried.
Question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put and agreed to.